ArticleCritical care (London, England)2009
Validation of continuous cardiac output technologies: consensus still awaited.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Limitations of stroke volume estimation by non-invasive blood pressure monitoring in hypergravity.PloS one · 2015Trial
- The effects of passive leg raising may be detected by the plethysmographic oxygen saturation signal in critically ill patients.Critical care (London, England) · 2019Article
- Next-generation, personalised, model-based critical care medicine: a state-of-the art review of in silico virtual patient models, methods, and cohorts, and how to validation them.Biomedical engineering online · 2018Review
- Comparing cardiac output monitors and defining agreement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2016Article
- Accuracy and precision of calibrated arterial pulse contour analysis in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage requiring high-dose vasopressor therapy: a prospective observational clinical trial.Critical care (London, England) · 2014Observational
- Clinical review: Does it matter which hemodynamic monitoring system is used?Critical care (London, England) · 2013Review
- Methods in pharmacology: measurement of cardiac output.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An ability to measure cardiac output in a continuous and non-invasive fashion is eagerly awaited in the field of intensive care practice. Modern technologies purport to be able to do this, but the design of studies that validate the manufacturers' claims is by no means straightforward. It is imperative that the scientific community describes and agrees on a set of principles that will enable us to design and then review and assess future validation studies, so that new technologies can be fairly assessed and compared with their competitors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.